Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Raymond A. W.,
Plaintiff,
V.
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:25-cv-171
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Litkovitz
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff applied for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and
supplemental security income in March 2014, alleging a disability onset date of
August 7, 2009 (later amended to August 31, 2012). Tr. 215-20, 289. His
application was denied three times, and, for a variety of reasons, a Judge of this
Court reversed and remanded each denial. See generally Case Nos. 2:18-cv-
186; 2:20-cv-1795; 2:23-cv-547. The fourth consideration of the application at
the administrative level was assigned to Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")
Appleton, who also determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. Tr. 1713-34.
Plaintiff appealed that decision directly to this Court, and it is that fourth
determination that is at issue. Compl., ECF No. 1.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"),
recommending that the Court overrule Plaintiff's Statement of Specific Errors and
affirm the Commissioner's decision. R&R, ECF No. 14. Plaintiff objects. Obj.,
ECF No. 15
Case: 2:25-cv-00171-MHW-KLL Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court reviews de
novo those portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff properly objected. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b).
II. ANALYSIS
In his Statement of Specific Errors, Plaintiff argued that theALJ's
evaluations of both Dr. Margaret Smith's and Dr. John Paulus's opinions were
unsupported by substantial evidence. Stmt. of Errors 9-17, ECF No. 10. The
Magistrate Judge's R&R explains why theALJ's evaluations of those doctors'
opinions were supported by substantial evidence. R&R 7-20, ECF No. 14. On
objection, Plaintiff abandons his argument vis-a-vis Dr. Smith and objects only to
the Magistrate Judge's recommendation regarding Dr. Paulus. Obj. 2-4, ECF
No. 15.
On objection, Plaintiff argues that none of the ALJ's justifications for giving
Dr. Paulus's opinions partial weight hold water. Specifically, Plaintiff contends
that: (1) the ALJ failed to explain how Dr. Paulus's opinions were inconsistent
with Dr. Paulus's exam; (2) theALJ downplayed evidence supporting Dr. Paulus's
opinions; and (3) Dr. Smith's rejected findings cannot be the basis for
contradicting Dr. Paulus's opinions. Id. at 2-4. Plaintiff does not, however,
identify which of Dr. Paulus's opinions were allegedly not incorporated into the
CaseNo. 2:25-cv-171 	Page 2 of 6
Case: 2:25-cv-00171-MHW-KLL Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Mental Residual Functional Capacity ("MRFC") and also not adequately
explained away.1
Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and
concludes that the ALJ explained the assignment of weight afforded to Dr.
Paulus's opinions and supported that explanation with sufficient evidence.
TheALJ explained that Dr. Paulus's opinions were given only "partial
weight" because some of those opinions were inconsistent with: (1) Dr. Paulus's
own 2013 examination of Plaintiff; (2) later evidence of Plaintiff's improvement;
(3) Dr. Smith's accepted observations of Plaintiff; and (4) Plaintiff's own
testimony. Tr. 1730-31.
Those conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. For example,
Dr. Paulus opined that Plaintiff was markedly limited in his ability to make simple
work-related decisions, Tr. 394, but he observed during examination that Plaintiff
"demonstrat[ed] normal reasoning capacity[, ]" Tr. 306, 1727; see a/so Tr. 1730
("Dr. Paulus observed that the claimant's thought process was normal .... "). Dr.
1 For example, Dr. Paulus opined that Plaintiff was markedly limited in his ability to
understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions. Tr. 394. TheALJ
incorporated those opinions in the MRFC by limiting Plaintiff to simple instructions. Tr.
1722. Similarly, Dr. Paulus opined that Plaintiff was markedly limited in his ability to
maintain attention and concentration, perform activities within a schedule, or perform at
a consistent pace, Tr. 394, which theALJ incorporated by limiting Plaintiff to no
production rates or hourly quotas and requiring a daily reminder from a supervisor, Tr.
1722. Dr. Paulus opined that Plaintiff was markedly limited in his ability to accept
instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors, Tr. 394, and the
ALJ limited Plaintiffto occasional interaction with supervisors, "limited to the
straightforward exchange of information without negotiation, persuasion or conflict
resolution, " Tr. 1722.
CaseNo. 2:25-cv-171 	Page 3 of 6
Case: 2:25-cv-00171-MHW-KLL Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Smith, moreover, observed a reduction in immediate memory but "normal
intellectual functioning. " Tr. 1727. Thus, Dr. Paulus's own examination and Dr.
Smith's finding are inconsistent with a marked limitation in making simple work-
related decisions.
Additionally, Dr. Paulus opined that Plaintiff was markedly limited in his
ability to understand and remember very short and simple instructions, Tr. 394,
yet he observed that Plaintiff was able to complete an hour-long personality test
and comprehend questions for the same, Tr. 306, 1727. Similarly, Dr. Smith
opined that Plaintiff could perform simple tasks, 2 noting that Plaintiff finished a
fifty-minute interview and "tracked the flow of conversation adequately, " exhibited
no signs of distractibility, managed his medication, cooked microwave meals,
appeared able to manage personal funds, and was competent for simple tasks.
Tr. 355-56. The ability to track conversation and answer questions during a fifty-
minute interview, without exhibiting distractibility, is inconsistent with a marked
limitation in the ability to understand and remember very short and simple
instructions. And managing medication and personal funds, along with cooking
microwave meals, also requires one to follow at least "very short and simple"
2 The fact that the ALJ discounted some of Dr. Smith's opinions does not prohibit the
ALJ from crediting other of Dr. Smith's opinions or from concluding that the credited
opinions-like Plaintiff's ability to perform simple tasks-conflict with some of Dr.
Paulus's opinions. TheALJ discredited Dr. Smith's opinions that Plaintiff would require
close supervision or would be unable to stay on task, but he did not use those
discredited opinions to contradict Dr. Paulus.
Case No. 2:25-cv-171 	Page 4 of 6
Case: 2:25-cv-00171-MHW-KLL Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

instructions. So, Dr. Paulus's own examination and Dr. Smith's findings are
inconsistent with this opinion as well
The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff's own testimony and later evidence
undermined some of Dr. Paulus's opinions. As for Plaintiff's testimony, Plaintiff
testified that medication reduced his symptoms and helped him concentrate and
that he drove himself, washed dishes, cleaned up after himself, and did some
laundry. Tr. 1724, 1727. Moreover, as of 2018, Plaintiff noted that his post-
surgery memory problems did not affect his quality of life and that his seizures
were well controlled. Tr. 1726. Plaintiff's testimony is therefore likewise
inconsistent with a marked limitation in the ability to follow very short and simple
instructions or make simple work-related decisions.
Finally, the ALJ observed that mental health treatment notes post-Dr.
Paulus indicated that one of Plaintiff's mental health providers refused to
complete a disability report for Plaintiff in 2016 because Plaintiff "often painted his
mental disability in extremely dysfunctional ways that were contradictory to" the
counselor's own experiences with Plaintiff. Tr. 127-28. The same counselor "did
not observe much memory loss with him, as he seemed to remember things fairly
well. " Tr. 1728.
In sum, although the record may have contained evidence that supported
Dr. Paulus's opinions, theALJ's conclusion was supported by substantial
evidence.
CaseNo. 2:25-cv-171 	Page 5 of 6
Case: 2:25-cv-00171-MHW-KLL Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, and the Court
ADOPTS the R&R. The Court SUSTAINS the Commissioner's non-disability
finding. The Clerk shall enter judgment for the Commissioner and terminate the
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
M CHAEL H. W TSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CaseNo. 2:25-cv-171 	Page 6 of 6
Case: 2:25-cv-00171-MHW-KLL Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/22/26 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>